State v. Hodges

Citation234 S.W. 789
Decision Date19 November 1921
Docket NumberNo. 23013.,23013.
PartiesSTATE v. HODGES.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; Charles L. Henson, Judge.

George Hodges was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

On January 12, 1920, the prosecuting attorney of Lawrence county, Mo., filed in the circuit court of said county a verified information, which, without caption and signature, reads as follows:

"James A. Potter, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Lawrence and state of Missouri, acting herein under his oath of office and upon his information and belief, informs the court that George Hodges, late of said county of Lawrence, on or about the last days of October, or the first days of November, 1919, the exact date being unknown to this affiant, at said county of Lawrence, two neat cattle, to wit, two steers, of the value of $50 each, of the goods, chattels, and personal property of Emery Colley, then and there being, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the peace and dignity of the state."

On May 24, 1920, defendant was formally arraigned, and entered his plea of not guilty. Thereafter, on the following day, a jury was impaneled to try said cause, and returned into court the following verdict:

"We, the jury, find the defendant, George Hodges, guilty as charged in the information, and do assess his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

"Hiram Holt, Foreman."

On May 25, 1920, defendant filed motions for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment. Both motions were overruled on the same day. Thereafter, on said 25th day of May, 1920, the court rendered judgment, and pronounced sentence upon defendant, in conformity with the terms of said verdict. Thereafter, on the last date mentioned, appellant filed an affidavit for appeal, which was sustained, and aft appeal was granted him to this court.

It appears from the certificate of the circuit clerk of Lawrence county aforesaid, of date May 21, 1921, that no bill of exceptions was filed in above cause.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (R. W. Otto, of Union, of counsel), for the State.

RAILEY, C, (after stating the facts as above).

1. There is nothing here for review, except the record proper, as no bill of exceptions was filed in the court below. It becomes our duty, however, under the law, to determine whether the information is sufficient, and the judgment rendered in the case is authorized by law.

Section 4106, R. S. 1919 (Mo.), reads as follows:

"No assignment of error, or joinder in error, shall be necessary upon any appeal or writ of error, in a criminal case, issued or taken pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this article; but the court shall proceed upon the return thereof without delay, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Gates Hotel Co. v. Davis Real Estate Co., 29602.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1932
    ... ... 75; Reitz v. O'Neil, 2 S.W. (2d) 178. (5) The Statute of Frauds has no application to constructive trusts as set up in this case. State ex rel. Cruzen v. Ellison, 278 Mo. 204; Prendiville v. Prendiville, 284 Mo. 131; Bryan v. McCaskill, 284 Mo. 602; Phillips v. Jackson, 240 Mo. 335; ... ...
  • Gates Hotel Co. v. C. R. H. Davis Real Estate Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1932
    ... ... O'Neil, 2 S.W.2d 178. (5) The Statute of Frauds has ... no application to constructive trusts as set up in this case ... State ex rel. Cruzen v. Ellison, 278 Mo. 204; ... Prendiville v. Prendiville, 284 Mo. 131; Bryan ... v. McCaskill, 284 Mo. 602; Phillips v ... ...
  • State v. Martin
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1948
    ... ... Baty, ... Assistant Attorney General, for respondent ...          (1) The ... amended information is sufficient in form and substance and ... fully complies with the statute. Sec. 4456, R.S. 1939; ... State v. Bloomer, 231 S.W. 568; State v ... Hodges, 234 S.W. 789. (2) Appellant was properly given ... allocution, and the judgment of the court was responsive to ... the verdict of the jury and the evidence. (3) The verdict is ... sufficient in form and substance and fully complies with the ... law and the evidence in every respect. Secs ... ...
  • Gates Hotel Co. v. Federal Inv. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1932
    ... ... is once made and overruled, further objection to each ... question is unnecessary. Shoemaker v. Adair Coal ... Co., 255 S.W. 352; State v. Hicks, 3 S.W.2d ... 230. (2) Since the plaintiff's petition was based upon an ... express contract, it was necessary to prove the alleged ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT